Freedom from TV license oppression
Discussion
The bbc should not be funded by a captive audience, if its business model is lacking then it should suffer the same fate as any other broadcaster.
All this pap about "40p a day" being such good value is diversion and claptrap, if the bbc wants to charge for its services then fine do so, but dont expect every tv owner to fund them and then have issues about whether or not theyre licensed.
Get rid of the licence, let the Bolsheviks Broadcasting Communism operate a subscription service, then we'll see just how "great" they really are.
You shouldnt be held to ransom just for owning a bloody telly!
All this pap about "40p a day" being such good value is diversion and claptrap, if the bbc wants to charge for its services then fine do so, but dont expect every tv owner to fund them and then have issues about whether or not theyre licensed.
Get rid of the licence, let the Bolsheviks Broadcasting Communism operate a subscription service, then we'll see just how "great" they really are.
You shouldnt be held to ransom just for owning a bloody telly!
chris watton said:
If the BBC is as great as some on here are saying, then it will be as successful, if not more, than SKY, if it were to become a subscription based model?
Why should valuable mean profitable?To me at least, public service broadcasting is worth something unrelated to my personal consumption of it.
Funk said:
Colonial said:
I probably made this point earlier but why not just fund it from general revenue and build the amount in to existing taxes?
Because there are many of us who don't watch live TV or any of the BBC's output. Why should we have to pay for it? Perhaps you should pay for people who want Sky or Virgin TV too, even if you don't want it?Make it subscription, lock the channels down and require a valid TV licence to watch iPlayer. It's all digital now so there are no excuses. Simple, effective and fair and those who want it can pay for it, those who don't, won't.
Tannedbaldhead said:
As for the accusation of a Left Wing bias? I think this is the opinion of thick UKIPpy types mixing up proper left wing views with a liberal, urbane cosmopolitan, intellectual mindset that they find equally offensive.
Perhaps you'll take it from someone in a position to know who worked there for 20 years:Left-wing bias? It's written through the BBC's very DNA, says Peter Sissons
davepoth said:
Funk said:
Colonial said:
I probably made this point earlier but why not just fund it from general revenue and build the amount in to existing taxes?
Because there are many of us who don't watch live TV or any of the BBC's output. Why should we have to pay for it? Perhaps you should pay for people who want Sky or Virgin TV too, even if you don't want it?Make it subscription, lock the channels down and require a valid TV licence to watch iPlayer. It's all digital now so there are no excuses. Simple, effective and fair and those who want it can pay for it, those who don't, won't.
FWIW, I don't have kids either. Nor have I ever been in hospital but I don't object to paying for that from my taxes either.
Edited by Funk on Sunday 1st March 14:47
davepoth said:
I don't use schools. Why should I have to pay for them?
Because you went there when you were a kid?Who knows, maybe your parents didn't pay tax? I don't know. But I appreciate that without contributing to paying for such, there will be no-one to serve me in shops, or diagnose when I'm ill or flip me a burger when I feel like one.
On the other hand, the 10% of BBC programming I do watch isn't a fair return on the fee.
I don't care about the radio stations, the majority now are dross. The news is far from unbiased and they hum the merry climate change mantra on a daily basis. If there is a foreign culture that needs a station, let them pay for it,I have no interest in or wish to learn about.
The best thing would be a cut of the dead wood, to quote Percy Thrower, "Cut it right back".
If it dies then its of its own doing, it should not be supported by taxpayer money. Especially seeing the levels of corruption and covering up of sex scandals.
With these feet said:
davepoth said:
I don't use schools. Why should I have to pay for them?
Because you went there when you were a kid?Who knows, maybe your parents didn't pay tax?
[quote]I don't know. But I appreciate that without contributing to paying for such, there will be no-one to serve me in shops, or diagnose when I'm ill or flip me a burger when I feel like one.
On the other hand, the 10% of BBC programming I do watch isn't a fair return on the fee.
I don't care about the radio stations, the majority now are dross. The news is far from unbiased and they hum the merry climate change mantra on a daily basis. If there is a foreign culture that needs a station, let them pay for it,I have no interest in or wish to learn about.
The best thing would be a cut of the dead wood, to quote Percy Thrower, "Cut it right back".
If it dies then its of its own doing, it should not be supported by taxpayer money. Especially seeing the levels of corruption and covering up of sex scandals.
I guess the question is whether the BBC could continue to be relevant if it ditched "lowest common denominator" television. My hope would be that if Cash in the Attic and Homes Under The Hammer were replaced with "A Play for Today" and in-depth current affairs programming that people would watch them and become enlightened. I fear that all that would happen is that the majority of people would get annoyed by the big words and turn over to watch Jeremy Kyle instead however.
McWigglebum4th said:
Only about 10% of what the BBC turns out is decent
And that 10% is only decent if you have an IQ higher then a fish
I am sure the BBC in its current form would go belly up within a year as the majority of the UK loves the fish level IQ fodder that sky and its ilk churn out
I have some American friends, two of whom are professors, one of whom was a uni lecturer, all four with IQs somewhat higher than fish. All say how much better the BBC is than the output they are fed over there. My lad went to Oz and said that the thing that stuck in his mind was the poor TV output.And that 10% is only decent if you have an IQ higher then a fish
I am sure the BBC in its current form would go belly up within a year as the majority of the UK loves the fish level IQ fodder that sky and its ilk churn out
It is a terrible shame that politics and the BBC have become mixed up. The BBC is the most regulated TV company. If you watch some of Fox news, the right wing bias is laughable.
We have a gem in the BBC. Just BBC 4 is worth the licence money. We are the envy of most of the world.
Just because it is not sycophantic to right wing politics does not mean it is biased.
The BBC came under attack from Murdoch. See the McTaggart lectures that his little me broadcasts before elections. Once he was allowed to dominate satellite TV his main target became the BBC and we have been fed his bias against it for years. He knew that with the BBC broadcasting, his output could not be the rubbish that he gets away with in other countries.
He was allowed to dominate the newspaper market and its demise has a lot to do with him.
The BBC produces some of the best TV programmes in the world, and produces one of the most seen TV programmes in the world. Without the BBC, there would be many actors, writers, produces and directors who would not have had a career.
Oppression? See the dominance of Murdoch in Oz news for oppression. Or rather, see this country if we ever lose the BBC.
Derek Smith said:
I have some American friends, two of whom are professors, one of whom was a uni lecturer, all four with IQs somewhat higher than fish. All say how much better the BBC is than the output they are fed over there. My lad went to Oz and said that the thing that stuck in his mind was the poor TV output.
Derek, that's like saying drinking piss is better than eating s
t.I don't want either.
The BBC churns out crap. That it's 'less crappy' than the crap in other countries is not the point. It's still crap whichever way you dress it up.
Out of interest, are Americans and Aussies forced to pay for their crap TV or is it subscription like Sky/Virgin?
Funk said:
Derek Smith said:
I have some American friends, two of whom are professors, one of whom was a uni lecturer, all four with IQs somewhat higher than fish. All say how much better the BBC is than the output they are fed over there. My lad went to Oz and said that the thing that stuck in his mind was the poor TV output.
Derek, that's like saying drinking piss is better than eating st.I don't want either.
The BBC churns out crap. That it's 'less crappy' than the crap in other countries is not the point. It's still crap whichever way you dress it up.
Out of interest, are Americans and Aussies forced to pay for their crap TV or is it subscription like Sky/Virgin?
I can fully understand why the posters of a more left persuasion, or have public sector jobs love it, but in all honesty, it's not really for me, and given the option to legally opt out of paying the licence, I would without hesitation while the BBC continues as it is.
There is so much choice now, that this fee is just archaic!
I'm not going to get into arguments about whether the BBC produces crap or not - that's down to taste (or lack thereof). However, as has been mentioned, the BBC brings into GB PLC a huge amount of money from overseas sales. Current thinking is £2 to us, for every £1 spent.
FYI - Top Gear and Sherlock Holmes alone bring in more than £1.3 billion a year into the British economy. Proper British exports made by Brits in Britain.
FYI - Top Gear and Sherlock Holmes alone bring in more than £1.3 billion a year into the British economy. Proper British exports made by Brits in Britain.
GetCarter said:
I'm not going to get into arguments about whether the BBC produces crap or not - that's down to taste (or lack thereof). However, as has been mentioned, the BBC brings into GB PLC a huge amount of money from overseas sales. Current thinking is £2 to us, for every £1 spent.
FYI - Top Gear and Sherlock Holmes alone bring in more than £1.3 billion a year into the British economy. Proper British exports made by Brits in Britain.
Then I'm sure they could make it self-sufficient quite easily...FYI - Top Gear and Sherlock Holmes alone bring in more than £1.3 billion a year into the British economy. Proper British exports made by Brits in Britain.
Funk said:
Derek, that's like saying drinking piss is better than eating st.
I don't want either.
The BBC churns out crap. That it's 'less crappy' than the crap in other countries is not the point. It's still crap whichever way you dress it up.
Out of interest, are Americans and Aussies forced to pay for their crap TV or is it subscription like Sky/Virgin?
The BBC standard is world class. To call is rubbish is silly. What the BBC do this year, other production companies will try in a couple of years. t.I don't want either.
The BBC churns out crap. That it's 'less crappy' than the crap in other countries is not the point. It's still crap whichever way you dress it up.
Out of interest, are Americans and Aussies forced to pay for their crap TV or is it subscription like Sky/Virgin?
I don't watch much TV, probably no more than six hours a week, less in times of 6N deficit, but those 6 hours are of very high quality.
The Aussies pay for rubbish unless their supplier of choice includes UK TV.
Derek Smith said:
Funk said:
Derek, that's like saying drinking piss is better than eating st.
I don't want either.
The BBC churns out crap. That it's 'less crappy' than the crap in other countries is not the point. It's still crap whichever way you dress it up.
Out of interest, are Americans and Aussies forced to pay for their crap TV or is it subscription like Sky/Virgin?
The BBC standard is world class. To call is rubbish is silly. What the BBC do this year, other production companies will try in a couple of years. t.I don't want either.
The BBC churns out crap. That it's 'less crappy' than the crap in other countries is not the point. It's still crap whichever way you dress it up.
Out of interest, are Americans and Aussies forced to pay for their crap TV or is it subscription like Sky/Virgin?
I don't watch much TV, probably no more than six hours a week, less in times of 6N deficit, but those 6 hours are of very high quality.
The Aussies pay for rubbish unless their supplier of choice includes UK TV.
1. their brainwashing by right wing libertarian USAmerican 'heoroes' that anything ot the left of Sen. McCarthy is a 'goddamn commie pinko reds under the bed' plot
2.and also their objection to taxation in general
this is before you get the freewibble angle to it
Tomorrow we have, a quick glance at the Radio Times tells me, that Top Gear is on at 8pm.
One BBC 4, we have, at:
8.oopm: The Great Melt. A documentary about the arctic
9.00pm: Climate Change by Nubmers. A programme presented by a mathmatician.
10.15pm: The 1.7 billion dollar fraud. A Japanese fraud.
11.30pm: The second in the series about the medieval period.
If that doesn't excite, then there's Coronation Street.
One BBC 4, we have, at:
8.oopm: The Great Melt. A documentary about the arctic
9.00pm: Climate Change by Nubmers. A programme presented by a mathmatician.
10.15pm: The 1.7 billion dollar fraud. A Japanese fraud.
11.30pm: The second in the series about the medieval period.
If that doesn't excite, then there's Coronation Street.
Funk said:
GetCarter said:
I'm not going to get into arguments about whether the BBC produces crap or not - that's down to taste (or lack thereof). However, as has been mentioned, the BBC brings into GB PLC a huge amount of money from overseas sales. Current thinking is £2 to us, for every £1 spent.
FYI - Top Gear and Sherlock Holmes alone bring in more than £1.3 billion a year into the British economy. Proper British exports made by Brits in Britain.
Then I'm sure they could make it self-sufficient quite easily...FYI - Top Gear and Sherlock Holmes alone bring in more than £1.3 billion a year into the British economy. Proper British exports made by Brits in Britain.
marshalla said:
If the public service broadcaster wasn't trying to compete with the commercial broadcasters, I'd agree.
Why that way around?What would happen to commercial output if they didn't have to compete with state-funded content? Neither of us can answer that with good evidence but I have a fair idea.
What's the primary motivation for ITV to put out decent content?
mph1977 said:
Derek Smith said:
Funk said:
Derek, that's like saying drinking piss is better than eating st.
I don't want either.
The BBC churns out crap. That it's 'less crappy' than the crap in other countries is not the point. It's still crap whichever way you dress it up.
Out of interest, are Americans and Aussies forced to pay for their crap TV or is it subscription like Sky/Virgin?
The BBC standard is world class. To call is rubbish is silly. What the BBC do this year, other production companies will try in a couple of years. t.I don't want either.
The BBC churns out crap. That it's 'less crappy' than the crap in other countries is not the point. It's still crap whichever way you dress it up.
Out of interest, are Americans and Aussies forced to pay for their crap TV or is it subscription like Sky/Virgin?
I don't watch much TV, probably no more than six hours a week, less in times of 6N deficit, but those 6 hours are of very high quality.
The Aussies pay for rubbish unless their supplier of choice includes UK TV.
1. their brainwashing by right wing libertarian USAmerican 'heoroes' that anything ot the left of Sen. McCarthy is a 'goddamn commie pinko reds under the bed' plot
2.and also their objection to taxation in general
this is before you get the freewibble angle to it
Derek - the Aussies therefore have a choice about whether to pay or not. If it's crap, they don't have to pay or watch.
Derek Smith said:
Tomorrow we have, a quick glance at the Radio Times tells me, that Top Gear is on at 8pm.
One BBC 4, we have, at:
8.oopm: The Great Melt. A documentary about the arctic
9.00pm: Climate Change by Nubmers. A programme presented by a mathmatician.
10.15pm: The 1.7 billion dollar fraud. A Japanese fraud.
11.30pm: The second in the series about the medieval period.
If that doesn't excite, then there's Coronation Street.
Sounds.....thrilling.One BBC 4, we have, at:
8.oopm: The Great Melt. A documentary about the arctic
9.00pm: Climate Change by Nubmers. A programme presented by a mathmatician.
10.15pm: The 1.7 billion dollar fraud. A Japanese fraud.
11.30pm: The second in the series about the medieval period.
If that doesn't excite, then there's Coronation Street.
What you seem to have there is some back-to-back climate change programming (a staple of BBC topics) and something about monasteries that could be interesting if you like that sort of thing and was made by independent film and TV production company "Oxford Film and TV" (not the BBC)
Nothing about any of the programmes you've posted is of any interest to me though I'm afraid!
Edited by Funk on Sunday 1st March 16:36
The licence tax involving people paying for propaganda remains absurd.
http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/index.ph...
http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/index.ph...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff